July 25, 2012

Apparently, he's gotten the message that nastily attacking Romney isn't working. Here's his new ad, in which he actually seems kind of like Romney:

Text:

Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country. Governor Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top, roll back regulations on big banks, and he says that if we do our economy will grow and everyone will benefit. But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place.

Top-down? I think "top-down" is a better descriptor of the Obama preference for using the federal government to solve problems. A preference for the free market is bottom up.

I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs. Sometimes politics can seem very small. But the choice you face, it couldn't be bigger.

This feels like making the argument for Romney: an economy built to last... the middle class... pay down our debt... invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy....

Snuck in there is the old Obama theme: tax the rich. It's camouflaged within a lot of Romneyesque pro-capitalism talk. I think the Obama people have decided that lefty edge is a loser. Americans will chose capitalism over socialism if you make it stark. So he's repackaging himself as moderate. He's still saying "two very different plans for our country," but not pick capitalism or socialism, which is about what it was sounding like when he resorted to the "you didn't build that" rhetoric.

The extra expense to buy time to air a 60-second ad — instead of the usual 30-second unit lengths — usually means a campaign has a pressing need. What is Obama’s? Is it that his negative ads have reached the end of their usefulness, and it is time to present the alternative? Or did the ads overstay their welcome and begin to backfire? The campaign’s own polling — vastly more regular and extensive than the media’s — likely has the answer.

Damn, you guys move too fast. That line was the one that struck me, too. Mr. President, if you mean asking the wealthy to "pay a little more," you could do that right now. It's not actually illegal to send the IRS as much money as you like. You might start by "asking" the folks at one of your fundraisers to make out their $30K checks to the government rather than to the Obama campaign. Every little bit helps, yes?

Americans will [choose] capitalism over socialism if you make it stark.

Is Obama a socialist? Is it reasonable to call him that?

For a long time now, and increasingly so lately, lefties have said it is an unreasonable charge. It reminds me of the discussion of communism back in the 80s. I would point to China and Russia and Cuba and say "it sucks". Leftists would respond, "It hasn't been done right. Read Marx. If it's done correctly, it'll work."

So Obama's not a socialist, because his quasi-socialist preferences are not true socialism. Don't call him that! Walk away.

Ans: Raising the tax rates on everyone. To make that happen we will just say "raising taxes to fair levels on the wealthy" and let the Bush tax rates expire. That will happily raise taxes on everyone. And let us lie about actually raising tax rates! It is a Win Win!

This part is the real bullshit on stilts. Obama's shown no sign of paying down our debt. Quite the opposite.

Obama's attacking Romney on outsourcing and foreign investment is heavily flawed too. We have a global economy, like it or not. Jobs and investments will float in and out of our country based on a number of factors. We need to be able to compete on a global scale.

Romney has done this successfully on a personal and professional level. Obama has never competed in the business economy period.

If Obama and the democrats were to actually cut spending today to the point that the budget is balanced with the current tax rates however painful it would be for me I would agree to pay more in taxes if the additional higher rates and elimination of deductions were used to pay down the national debt. But they aren't saying that so why waste more money in taxes on 'entitlements'?

Obama is right about one thing, there is a clear difference between the party of capitalism versus the party of a command economy. Socialism versus capitalism, it really is that stark of a choice in the upcoming election.

Obama is playing a new role on a new stage set. He is acting out the old dem roles of liberals that want America to succeed, and then share some of the benefits with the less fortunate.

Of course Marxism that Obama was born and bred into simply wants to kill the 25% of the population that is successful, and enslave the rest until they chose suicide over meaningless misery. That Marxist message got through last week.

So Obama's superior acting skills are back on stage front and center. Break a leg, kommisar Barry. Only a racist is against you now.

Axelrod must have woken up and seen for the first time that accusing Romney of being a highly successful buiness man was only helping Romney. Elizabeth Warren forgot to tell them that Marxism only works on Harvard intellectuals.

1980. Deja vu all over again. Iran then, Iran now. Horrible economy then, horrible economy now. At least Carter had some foreign policy successes such as the first Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel. Of course Obama and the current democrats overlook the minor detail of Sadat being Killed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Or that pulling the rug out under the Shah brought Khomeini in to power. As Carville said in 92 "its the economy, stupid!". Or as Reagan said "are you better off now than four years ago?" Game over for the democrats in November.

So Obama's not a socialist, because his quasi-socialist preferences are not true socialism. Don't call him that! Walk away.

OK Fascism then. As in National Socialism. And that doesn't reflexively mean German NAZIs. The movement has a long long history.

If Romney wants to win he should put out commercials that clearly and concisely state what he will do and what the results would be starting with these two simple things.

1. Put the brakes on the EPA in the ethanol boondoggle. Stop burning up our food supply/corn in a record drought. This will bring down the cost of food not only in the US but world wide and reduce the instability caused by food shortages.

2. Increase energy production in this country. Immediately remove the restrictions on oil production and facilitate the building of refineries. It will improve our relations with our immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada. Bring lower fuel and energy costs which will reduce the costs of almost everything we do, boost the economy hugely, make us more energy independent and create JOBS. Long lasting, not temporary jobs.

Optional:3. Deal with Obama Care. Most people don't understand it and are fearful of it. Promise to recall and start from square one in a slow and methodical manner to make sure we get it RIGHT this time.

If he does just those TWO things and holds out hope on the third, the economy would BOOM. People can relate to those actions because what Obama has done has hit them directly and personally in the pocket book.

All this dithering about the 'rich' and tax rates....goes whoosh over the heads of most people. That is all insider and political junkie talk. What most people KNOW is that the economy sucks. Gas is expensive and you can't buy food for the same dollars you used last year or the year before.

Sell your story to the people and tell them what you are going to do for THEM.

"You didn't build that" was far too clear an expression of his views on "economic justice", so he's frantically trying to backtrack. But he's made it clear enough, and often enough, that lowering the top of the income distribution is as important to him as raising the bottom, and probably more so.

Except in the cases of major donors to his campaign, of course, who demonstrate their virtue by their political fealty.

Actually I can. It isn't that hard. Just need to handle people using wrong measures in the wrong places.

Anyway, percentage change is a stupid measure to apply to things of different scale. Example: I spend $1, $2, $3, and $4. That is a 100% increase per year of the first year of spending. Or increases of 100%, 50%, and then 33%. HORRORS!

You spend $100, $110, $120, and $130. That is *only* an increase of 10% per year of the first year of spending. Or increases of 10%, 9%, and then 8%. WONDERFUL!

For fiscally responsible people Term 1 of Bush wasn't perfect, but bills were paid and the Federal govt seemed to work. During two wars even. So I'd say $9 trillion in four years is a good goal. Therefore Obama is spending $5.4 trillion to much.

Hmm ... $5.4 trillion? Wow, that is about the debt that he has added to our country. Interesting.

garage mahal is peddling a myth that got 3 Pinocchios from that notoriously wingnut rag the Washington Post.

Fox News had this to say about the ludicrous claim garage is peddling:

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the [Nutting] analysis counted them as government spending cuts. It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.

You cannot build a successful economy by punishing and penalizing legitimate business anymore than you can raise morale by beating the crew. French socialists forget that from time to time; it is an expensive lesson to relearn.

In context of business and auto industry pulling up stakes in France and closing up shop.

The thing that makes the wealthy Hollywood left different from other rich folk is that Hollywood plutocrats made their money all at once. They woke up one day after a few hit movies and discovered that they were awash in a sea of cash. So, they don't mind losing some of it back again in higher taxes. It won't mean one less house or polo pony. (What magnanimity.)

They are not like the typical rich person in America, who spent years of 80 hour weeks grinding out 5 percent profits running the family stamping plant or accounting practice or chain of taco stands. This is the class of people that Obama intends to hurt, because according to him, they don't give their fair share.

I can't even bear to see the guy on a YouTube video. He gives me the creeps.

Scott said...The thing that makes the wealthy Hollywood left different from other rich folk is that Hollywood plutocrats made their money all at once.

This x100.

I'm convinced that this is why Hollywood leans so far left. A handful of people who really did get rich for little more than being slightly more photogenic than the next handful of people think that's the way the rest of the world operates.

La Pasionaria said "So there is no reason to believe that he will actually deliver when it counts."

This brings to my mind several aphorisms about government, including governing least. But mostly I think of one that I can't find online that says roughly that government must at least govern, and if it fails at that, it fails completely. Anyone know that quote?

La Pasionaria, you're saying that this POTUS fails to deliver the goods even to those who subscribe to his philosophies. He is a failed leader to the left. He certainly fails the right. So why does he even stand for re-election?

If the republicans were smart they would propose new taxes and eliminations of deductions and tax credits that hit mainly democrat states. Then watch the democrats go wild why those new taxes aren't necessary and are job killers.

La Pasionaria said... he will if re-elected, especially with a democrat congress. They will never have that chance again and they know it which explains them having passed the majority of the populace hating ACA.

It was their only chance of ever doing so. Give them credit for one thing, they had the nerve to do it. Obama and the left wing democrats are at their jump the shark moment. If they get shellacked in November they will be minor players for years to come. If God forbid they pull it off in November by 2016 no one will admit to being a democrat and they will be at best a regional party for a decade or more.

Just b/c you're utterly ignorant of what TARP2 did or how it was funded--as well as being unable to comprehend the difference b/w percentage increases and levels--you don't get the right to scream "lying hacks" at the people who actually do understand these things.

Nearly every single one of your "contributions" to this blog has led me to wonder, idiot or liar?

Garage: That is a break through chart!! I wonder why the president of the US does not use that chart in every speech? The chart defies what every sentient being on earth believes to be the facts and yet it is such a secret. I wonder why the smartest president ever doesn't use this to show that things aren't bad at all spending wise? Probably for the same reason that he will never again use the "you didn't build that" speech that was so much fun to give to the dumb shits in Roanoke.

You have the choice, between a flailing, incompetent, pandering failure, who has never seemed like more than a boy in a suit, and a guy who is at least a grownup, has more experience at running things, might do better, and would have a very hard time doing any worse.

While I'm not a Romney cheerleader, it's hard to think of a single reason not to give him a chance instead of voting to condemn ourselves to another 4 years with the current douchebag in the White House.

Bob Ellison said... La Pasionaria, you're saying that this POTUS fails to deliver the goods even to those who subscribe to his philosophies. He is a failed leader to the left. He certainly fails the right. So why does he even stand for re-election?

Because he is a very ambitious young man?

cubanbob said... he will if re-elected, especially with a democrat congress.

I dont believe that Democrats will retake Congress. I think its very likely that they will lose the Senate. The Presidency is their best chance right now.

But even under ideal conditions Democrats dont talk about repealing the Bush tax cuts completely. They only consider higher taxes on the rich.

They will never have that chance again and they know it which explains them having passed the majority of the populace hating ACA.

It was their only chance of ever doing so. Give them credit for one thing, they had the nerve to do it. Obama and the left wing democrats are at their jump the shark moment.

I agree that it was a unique opportunity which makes the outcome the more disappointing. They didnt even manage to pass a Public Option, not to speak of Single Payer. So I dont see why I should give them any credit for this mess, they took an electoral beatig for an old Heritage Foundation idea. Absurd!

Also note Factcheck.org: Our own analysis leads us to conclude that Obama deserves responsibility for somewhat more fiscal 2009 spending than Nutting assigns to him. Spending in that year shot up an incredible $535 billion. Nutting holds Obama responsible for only 26 percent of that increase, but we conclude that Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for as much as 38 percent.

We also disagree with Nutting’s conclusion that Obama’s increases are the lowest since Eisenhower

The table garbage links to is a statistical trick. In 2009, Obama's first year in office, spending increased 17.9%. The greatest amount since 1980. The deficit nearly tripled. Because spending didn't get any worse afterwards and actually declined by .02% one year, the combined average percent of increase, including estimates for future years, in garbage's chart look deceptively good. All of Obama's budgets show nearly triple of more the deficit of any of Bush's. Of course, Bush's worst year was after the Dems took control of Congress.

Look at table 1.1 and do some math: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

"they took an electoral beatig for an old Heritage Foundation idea. Absurd!"

Speaking of myths. The mandate is far from the worst aspect of Obamacare. It is designed to fail and the lefties know it. The weak penalties for not buying insurance plus the "shall issue" provision means that health insurance is going to go out of business unless Obamacare is repealed.

La Pasionaria said I agree that it was a unique opportunity which makes the outcome the more disappointing. They didnt even manage to pass a Public Option, not to speak of Single Payer. So I dont see why I should give them any credit for this mess, they took an electoral beatig for an old Heritage Foundation idea. Absurd!

Let me be plain: the Heritage Foundation is generally conservative, yes. They apparently supported the individual mandate, yes. Does that make the individual mandate a conservative idea? No. Don't be silly.

But my main question remains: who is your candidate? If this current one isn't the guy, whom will you support?

I'm proud to support Romney for several reasons, chief among which is that he's not Obama.

1) It only shows percent of spending change, not actual $ change.Why don't you have the guts to show the actual $ amount of deficit spending for each President? The fact is, President Obama has spent more than $1T more than tax revenue each and every year of his Presidency. No President had ever had even a single year of >$1T of deficit spending.

2) If you care about truth and accuracy at all (who am I kidding? you're a liberal! Truth and Accuracy don't matter to you when political power is on the line!), you'd have to remember that a President only proposes spending...it is Congress that passes the legislation, and can increase or decrease the spending, subject only to a President's veto.The bulk (80%?) of deficit spending during the Bush administration was after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006...so even that increase in spending was due to Democrat majority votes...including then-Senator Obama. So he helped create the deficit he claims to have inherited.

Finally, even the budgets President Obama has proposed were spending boondoggles, so bad that even Democrats wouldn't vote for it...But the plan was to get one huge year of increased spending (in 2009) and then refuse to pass a budget at all after that (see: Senate controlled by Democrats refusing to fulfill Constitutional duty), depending on that first increase in spending to be a baseline for continued overspending.

A detailed analysis of the Washington Post fact checker leading to Three Pinocchios is all a myth!!!

There was no link to the WaPo to begin with, Einstein. I think Chip was reading some wingnut claptrap about some Obama interview in 2001 and mistakenly pasted it? Here is the title to the article Chip linked to: "Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)"

The chart defies what every sentient being on earth believes to be the facts and yet it is such a secret

New tone my ass. 100 million dollars of Bain capital attack adds and the polls are turning against Urkel. It didn't work you fucking dummy, so what do you do? You and your cadre of morons go back to Romney is a racist and open up your class warfare nonsense. This is what presidential re-election desperation smells like. I cannot wait until you are gone

garage--Yes, my WaPo link was screwed up. I repasted the link from my 10:02 comment by mistake. Jay @10:43 has the correct link.

But the AP quote is right there in my comment, for your reading ease.

And the "2001" link is to a transcript of a fairly well-known interview Obama gave to Chicago's public radio station when he was a state senator and law "professor". So I guess WBEZ joins the WaPo and the AP as "right-wing sources" in your book. Cute.

You're defending a conscious distortion of simple arithmetic and budgetary facts, so of course the only weapons in your arsenal are cheap ad hominem bullshit.

My guess is that they meant to use the phrase "trickle down," but they're just not that bright, and have confused it with "top-down," which, as you point out, refers to a type of management, not a pattern of wealth distribution.

“Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.” ― Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy

Written during the winter of 1857-8, the "Grundrisse" was considered by Marx to be the first scientific elaboration of communist theory. A collection of seven notebooks on capital and money, it both develops the arguments outlined in the Communist Manifesto (1848) and explores the themes and theses that were to dominate his great later work "Capital". Here, for the first time, Marx set out his own version of Hegel's dialectics and developed his mature views on labour, surplus value and profit, offering many fresh insights into alienation, automation and the dangers of capitalist society. Yet while the theories in "Grundrisse" make it a vital precursor to "Capital", it also provides invaluable descriptions of Marx's wider-ranging philosophy, making it a unique insight into his beliefs and hopes for the foundation of a communist state.(less)

As for the failure of the democrats to go all the way with the ACA when they had the chance isn't proof that Obama isn't a hard lefty, just that he is (thank God) lazy and incompetent. He should have never subcontracted the legislation to Pelosi and Reid the both of them not having enough intelligence and competence to screw in a light bulb. The left screwed up by using a lightweight to be the point man for the final push.

BHO is no LBJ. And bad as he is I'm grateful for that.

Bob E:La Pasionaria is no troll. She is what she claims to be; an old school Marxist. And unlike the usual lefty trolls here she is honest in her opinions and not at all snarky.

53% of the country was foolish enough to vote for him in 2008, despite very clear indications that this would be the result. I wouldn't be so confident that almost all of them won't be foolish again. Self-interest and naivete are a deadly combination.

About Hollywood liberals, I have frequently read that many Hollywood moguls are real first class jerks—always cheating and trying to take advantage of the people who work with and under them. Hollywood liberals think this is how the rest of the country works as well.

"...the failure of the democrats to go all the way with the ACA when they had the chance isn't proof that Obama isn't a hard lefty...."

No, that would be found in the utter absence of any "leftism" in anything Obama has done or said while he has occupied the White House.

Oh...I get it. After Obama has exited the Preidency, whether in a matter of a few months or four and a half more years, secret "leftist" plots will be initiated by the utterance of magic code words, and his covert "leftism" will be revealed with the abrupt transformation of America into a leftist paradise/dictatorship, (depending on one's perspective).

exhelodrvr1 said...cubanbob," Game over for the democrats in November. "

53% of the country was foolish enough to vote for him in 2008, despite very clear indications that this would be the result. I wouldn't be so confident that almost all of them won't be foolish again. Self-interest and naivete are a deadly combination.

7/25/12 11:45 AM

Point well taken. At least in 2008 he was a blank slate that the voters who weren't paying attention could see what they wanted to see. My fear is that if you are right this time they will know what they are voting for. If thats the case the country is well and truly screwed.

WARNING: All discussions with garage mahal goes through his Righty-Filter. Where all logic and reasoning is translated in his head to "garble blargh, blargh, cough, er, garble garble". Please just pat him on the head, smile gently at him, and back away slowly. Red koolaid drool stains are hard to get out.

No, that would be found in the utter absence of any "leftism" in anything Obama has done or said while he has occupied the White House.

How is a man who is trying to nationalize the auto industry, strengthen unions, nationalize the health care industry, for just a few examples, NOT a leftist? I'd be curious to see what your definition of a leftist is.

All that is moot, of course. I think the only difference between you and Obama is that you're honest about your beliefs. I think he is a leftist through and through, and knows he could never be elected if that fact were well known. I think if you could get the president under a truth serum, there wouldn't be any major differences between your views and his.

A number of people have posited these paranoid theories for years. The idea that in our political climate ANYONE (especially based on nationality) could be herded into camps is absolutely hilarious. The ACLU and every other civil rights group would rightly go berserk, and the media would make it their number one story forever.

cubanbob said... As for the failure of the democrats to go all the way with the ACA when they had the chance isn't proof that Obama isn't a hard lefty, just that he is (thank God) lazy and incompetent.

Well, Mr Obama obviously is a leftwinger, but certainly not "hard" and he is no socialist. That he outsourced healthcare reform is not a sign of stupidity, but evidence of his priorities.

In that he is not much different from Bill Clinton: Both took moderate, compromising positions on the economy. What they really care about are social issues and immigration, which brings them in conflict with a huge chunk of the working class in this country, but keeps Hollywood millionaires and billionaires happy.

The only issue on which leftwing Democrats actually stood up to this President and forced him to change course was gay marriage. Not the public option or another issues of economic importance and thats telling.

"How is a man who is trying to nationalize the auto industry, strengthen unions, nationalize the health care industry, for just a few examples, NOT a leftist? I'd be curious to see what your definition of a leftist is."

It's Robert Cook. Pretty much everything is to his right. Marx? Right winger.

Yes, I remember when GHW Bush was building those camps with the UN out west for when he canceled the elections. Then Clinton was building them with the UN for when he canceled the elections. Then GW Bush was building them with the UN for when he canceled the elections.

@Robert Cook,No, that would be found in the utter absence of any "leftism" in anything Obama has done or said while he has occupied the White House.

statements: "You didn't build that on your own"(to bankers) "I'm all that stands between you and the pitchforks"(in various speeches) "raise taxes on anyone making more than $250k"--several various statements in support of the Occupy crowd--

actions:- not allowing drilling/development of fossil fuels on federal lands, then taking credit for boom on private lands- attempting to use EPA to block fracking- bail-out of GM that let union get almost everything they asked, but penalized stock/bond-holders- refusal to allow Keystone Pipeline- Fast and Furious illegal gun-walking to stimulate demands for Leftist gun control- Stimulus--Leftist in its Keynesian assumptions in itself, most of the funds when to crony payouts, which is even more Leftist- giving loan guarantees to just about any green company that an Obama donor would think about owning- giving a pass to Corzine's losing investor money via actiosn far more illegal than anything done by ENRON or Madoff- TARP II- Contraception Mandate- Stymied by Congress on Cap and Trade, attempting to implement via EPA- Refusal of Justice Dept to investigate/prosecute illegal actions by Black Panthers and other leftist community organization groups- Refusal to defend DOMA in court- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is clearly socialist and leftist, your refusal to admit it notwithstanding.

Remember that one-time $800 billion stimulus bill in 2009? That accounted for roughly 20% of federal spending in fiscal 2009. Just to play along, I'll go ahead and accept that that bill that was passed in the spring of 2009 was Bush's responsibility. Would you care to explain why federal spending didn't immediately drop by 20% for fiscal 2010, to the level of 2009 spending minus the stimulus?

I'm disappointed in Althouse for parroting the right wing talking points that "Obama's attacks are failing"--if so, what are Romney's attacks doing? The 538 analysis shows Obama ahead somewhere between 2-4 points, stable for the past three months. What if everyone's just made up their minds? Looks like Obama's winning, not by a lot but by about the margin Bush won by (when he won the popular vote). I know bloggers want to make it a horserace, but it's been the most boring horse race in the last 40 years....no hope of even a Palin-like move to liven things up.

First, only an idiot thinks Obama is a socialist. Read a dictionary. Next, it is top down (sorry). It is the old snake oil that if you unregulate business prosperity will result. What resulted was one economic calamity after another. If your memory is so bad that it cannot go back 4 years than read a book. And finally, taxes have been cut for the wealthy for over 30 years with almost no benefit to the middle class. Not a single shred of credible evidence that cutting taxes for the wealthy provides a single job. Jobs increase when demand increases for the products or services that the companies create. If there is no demand, if cash is hoarded or invested, no increased demand and no job increase. Try taking a rudimentary economics course. Supply side voodoo belongs with Cold Fusion and Intelligent design in the short list of intellectual frauds.

Remember that one-time $800 billion stimulus bill in 2009? That accounted for roughly 20% of federal spending in fiscal 2009. Just to play along, I'll go ahead and accept that that bill that was passed in the spring of 2009 was Bush's responsibility.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree. ...

"Jobs increase when demand increases for the products or services that the companies create. If there is no demand, if cash is hoarded or invested, no increased demand and no job increase. Try taking a rudimentary economics course. "

And finally, taxes have been cut for the wealthy for over 30 years with almost no benefit to the middle class. Not a single shred of credible evidence that cutting taxes for the wealthy provides a single job.

Ha ha, the responses have been great. One person cites Dick Morris, which is always a comfort since he has been wrong about pretty much everything for the last 10 years at least. The second person doesn't seem to understand that Obama doesn't have to win by as much as he did last time to stay in the White House. He won by a lot last time. He's winning by less now. But he's still winning. Meaning Mitt Romney is losing--Jay, you are the one that should be worried about denial.

You certainly can accept that proposition, but it's still not an actual fact.

Chip, the point I was trying to make is that regardless of who was responsible for fiscal 2009 spending decisions, the baseline for fiscal 2010 spending should have been fiscal 2009 minus the stimulus. I understand the facts in the link you posted, but I also understand that leftists and partisan dems will never accept them. None of that really matters in any practical sense. The 2009 money is spent and we're never getting it back.

What does matter is why it continues to be spent. I want to hear a rational explanation from a democrat (or a go along to get along establishment RINO) for why starting in fiscal 2010 the government didn't stop spending that extra $800 billion per year, regardless of who authorized it as a one time expenditure the first time.

La Pasionara is no troll. She is what she claims to be; an old school Marxist. And unlike the usual lefty trolls here she is honest in her opinions and not at all snarky.

She and Robert Cook. And the blog is the better for them. Would that we could trade garage, jeremy, ritmo, et al to, say, Kos, for players to be named later.

BTW, Robert, I read that article you linked. I think you'd be surprised at the number of us on the right side of the aisle who think the growth of the American police state is a poisonous viper that needs to be exterminated. Romney would go a long way towards generating good will on that score if he'd call off the insane "War On Drugs" and wipe out the TSA.

Jay, I'm not pretending either of the things you accuse me of. We have to wait until November for the votes, so the polls are all we have to look at. By your "logic", you are "pretending" that electing a Republican governor means you won't vote for Obama again (or actually to use your logic, you are "pretending" that having a Republican governor prevents Obama contsitutionally from winning the state). Obama has to win PA and OH, both of which he is currently leading in by large margins. He's even ahead in the composite polls in Florida! If Mitt can't win FL, it will be hard for him to win the White House. No pretending, for real!Again, you seem obsessed with Obama doing as well as he did last time. He only has to get 271. Right now, he looks more likely to do that (by predictive polling) than Romney.

One last point. You right-of-center types love the wisdom of the market in all arenas (I tend to agree). Obama is also ahead on the Intrade markets--if you are so confident Romney going to win, why don't you go make a big $10,000 bet and let us all know how it goes? If you lose, I'll even buy you a drink to soften the blow.

I want to hear a rational explanation from a democrat (or a go along to get along establishment RINO) for why starting in fiscal 2010 the government didn't stop spending that extra $800 billion per year, regardless of who authorized it as a one time expenditure the first time.

It wasn't 800 billion per year.

It wasn't all spending, about 1/3 were tax cuts.

Most of it was spent after fiscal 2009, only 114 billion was spent in fiscal 2009.

Paulio said... Jay, I'm not pretending either of the things you accuse me of. We have to wait until November for the votes, so the polls are all we have to look at. By your "logic", you are "pretending" that electing a Republican governor means you won't vote for Obama again (or actually to use your logic, you are "pretending" that having a Republican governor prevents Obama contsitutionally from winning the state).

No. What I'm suggesting is that election results are a better barometer than polls.

If you think Obama is "winning" right now Virginia for example, you're deluded.

Obama has to win PA and OH, both of which he is currently leading in by large margins.

13 keys:Here's what I have that are false:1: Democrats lost a stunning number of seats. There are no indications they are going to do anything to reverse those losses in the upcoming election. This is so bad for Democrats, it almost counts as two keys against Obama.5: most indications are that we are headed into a double-dip recession. If the actual numbers don't indicate that, it is so close as to be indistinguishable to voters.6: Employment and GDP numbers are way down from just 4 years ago.8: Occupy activities and racial tension (including Trayvon Martin) make this key a false statement.9: Fast and Furious is an obvious Administration scandal, as is the general lack of transparency, and the Obama-beneficial linking is another.10: The Obama admin failed in foreign/military affairs all over the place: our relationship with Canada has significantly worsened due to Obama bumbling, the "reset" button fiasco, total failure regarding Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya. Obama's fecklessness has made Afghanistan worse. And his cut-n-run from Iraq is a military failure, too.11: There have been zero foreign/military successes to counteract all the foreign/military failures since Obama has taken office.12: half point. Some people are dumb enough to think the Narcissist in Chief is likeable. But his campaign has significantly damaged his likeability to the point that his negatives are now significantly higher than Romney's.

Fun Trivia Fact:If that campaign promise of Obama's is actually kept, it will be the second of his administration.(the first, and to date, only fulfilled campaign promise of Obama was that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under his energy policies)

"Jobs increase when demand increases for the products or services that the companies create. If there is no demand, if cash is hoarded or invested, no increased demand and no job increase. Try taking a rudimentary economics course. "

Jobs increase when businesses grow. businesses grow when the people running the business think that growing is in their best interest.

Period. Dot.

If the people running the businesses don't think they'll make more by growing (say, because the government is being run by anti-business hacks), then having more money out there chasing goods just leads to inflation, as businesses get to charge more for their products.

Cut the size of the Federal, State, and local Governments. Cut the number of regulations that business, esp. small business, people need to worry about. Permanently extend the Bush / Obama tax cuts, so people know that they'll be able to keep the profits if they expand successfully. Get rid of ObamaCare, so people don't have to worry about what it will do to them.

Then, and only then, will the economy start growing, and employment start growing.

@EMD,You'll have to explain why killing bin Laden was more than just a minor tactical success, why any credit goes to anyone at all besides the planners and executors of the mission plan, and why Obama's preening and leaking after the fact didn't actually make things worse overall.

Like was pointed out: it wasn't really a gutsy call on Obama's part. He wasn't involved in any of the run-up, and made a decision that literally anyone would have made only after crafting an ass-covering memo to protect himself and only himself if things went badly.

It didn't make the US safer, and his deliberate leaks to make himself look better made relations worse with both Afghanistan and Pakistan.